Obama beat down Republican hardliners when they shut down the government. They shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. Now, his ratings are at a new low and his presidency is at risk.

I believed that Obama took a principled position when he tried to reform American medical care. Clinton had tried but failed. Perhaps it was an act of hubris to try again. Obama acted out of public-mindedness for which he should be commended.

To have some 35 million Americans without medical coverage is simply wrong. It is a problem that cries out for correction.

Otto von Bismarck, a Prussian Juncker and no friend of socialism got the Reichstag to provide universal medical care in Germany in the 1870s. He wanted to steal the thunder from his opponents. He recognized the need to provide medical care in a time of social and ideological conflict. Other Western countries have also done this, but not America. We stand alone on this issue among Western nations. We spend far more of our GDP on health care than every other country, even as a large part of the population has no coverage.

James Sheehan, recently retired from the History department of Stanford and a former president of the American Historical Association, wrote a book a few years ago that has not received the attention it deserves, “Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?”

The soldiers Sheehan refers to are European, not American. After centuries of warfare, European states learned some lessons, particularly after World War II. Europe was in ruins in 1945; perhaps arms build-ups hadn’t worked out so well. So where have all the soldiers gone? They have largely gone away. The various European states have not disarmed, but their defense budgets are a fraction of America’s. The welfare state came out of post-World War II thinking in Europe, and state-provided medical care is a centerpiece of this system.

America took a different path, one of corporate welfare. Let corporate America provide medical care and other benefits for workers. The problem is that not everyone is covered under this system. Another problem is that our corporations were saddled with costs that America’s competitors have not had to shoulder. We have put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage, and jobs have left America as a result.

America needs some major restructuring. Obama recognized this when he decided to reform American medical care. As soon as I saw how the winds were blowing, I stepped aside emotionally. The plan was too complex. I could see no way that it could work. I did not begin to envisage the problems that have surfaced, however. Where Obamacare will go at this point is anyone’s guess. Here was a plan that occupied the high moral ground initially. In practice, there are too many barriers to overcome.

The Bush presidency crashed and burned when we waged wars that have destroyed the countries we hoped to transform. We built the mightiest war machine in the history of the world. Bismarck would have known better than to use it as we did.

The European states have come to understand the limits of the welfare state, except Germany. France is crippled with a welfare system that is impossible to maintain. Greece, Italy, and Spain lost sight of economic realities a long ago. As for America, gridlock prevails.

I agree with etc. the first step should ahve been to regulate health care costs and insurance premiums, not force everyone to get insurance. There are going to be a lot of non-proverty working class people without insurance because of this.

Universal healthcare and insurance is a necessity in a modern society. Since the beginning Germany allowed the workers to pick and chose which insurance they want. That put insurance companies in direct competition with each other, but all but one were also allowed to decline customers. The one exception is an insurance company that is established as statutory organization under the control of state governments. Also, and valid for all, there is a maximum amount of income that can be taken as access fee. This is the only effective means to keep health care expenses in check.
That access fee is not a flat fee, but is calculated as percentage of income. That means that people with high income pay more for the same coverage. The access fee is split 50/50 between employee and employer as is the case with most other social service fees (retirement, geriatric care insurance, unemployment insurance, etc) That is the only way to make insurance affordable for lower incomes. So what if this is Robin Hood politics, we need more of that anyway! Take from the rich and give to the poor.

As far as Obamacare goes, the problem is that health insurance companies are still not allowed to offer plans that extend past state borders. The legislation missed the opportunity to allow for that and it would not have restricted the states’ rights to set their own requirements and regulations. Also, every single person should be free to chose the insurer and plan they want. That means that we get more competition, more focus on the consumer, and corporations are entirely out of the picture. Sure, they can still offer self-funded insurance if they want to and it can be a great attraction to workers if the price is right. Only with this competition on a level playing field cost can be held down because everyone is forced to save. This works for car and home insurance, why not do the same for health insurance?
There is a ton of what the US can learn from countries in Europe, but it will not happen as long as right-wing conservative pro-business think is the majority.

A couple of points: First, Bush the II’s unpaid medicaire prescription plan, along with unpaid wars, helped bankrupt the US. So did Wall Street. Second, the notion that insurance based medical care or any other kind of insurance itself, including drivers insurance, is “undemocratic” is, of course, looney. Such simplistic ideas are grounded in the failure of many to understand that political leanings are more than the manichean simplicity of right versus left they hear in the media. Progressives, of course, were enamoured of using insurance logic to try to solve social problems.

Barack Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.” 7.1 million get affordable health insurance.

Conservatives all say that Bush was misinformed by his advisers, so do liberals about Obama – the only difference of course is that over 100,000 civilians died because of Bush and millions get affordable health insurance because of Obama.

As far as who is ignorant in this equation – I invite everyone to ponder your post.

I did, by citing the same reason both Bush and Obama supporters have been given for each own similar situation. I am not privy to any internal memorandum, nor are you, and without evidence, opinions are cheap.

I tell you what – tell me what’s worse, over 100,000 violent deaths or 7.1 million with affordable medical insurance and I’ll give you my candid opinion.

jango, please clarify: Was Obama lying, or just ignorant, when he said “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period?”

Many thanks for the clarification. Personally, I am of the opinion that Aobama lied, repeatedly, when he kept repeating the false claim that “if you like your doctor, you can keep yor doctor. Period.” I guess it is possible that he was ignorant about his Obamacare material misstatements, but I believe he lied… repeatedly.

Grow up Realist. You avoid the only pertinent issue: You refuse to apply the same standard to Obama, whose policies resulted in 7.1 million receiving affordable health insurance, to Bush, whose policies resulted in death of over 100,000 innocent Iraqis and over 4600 US soldiers.

When you have the courage of your convictions, please, feel free to open up this discussion at any time. However, one can infer by your refusal to address the conservative write-off of Bush’s crimes against humanity demonstrates a latent realization that you know I am right….and for that I thank you sir.

jango, you did admit that Obama lied, repeatedly, when he stated, ove and over again, that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”

So, according to the left, there was no need to read the Obamacare legislation before making it the law of the land, there is nothing wrong about the President lying about what is in the law, and any criticism (of those who chose not to read Obamacare before inflicting it on the rest of us, or of those who lie to us about what Obamacare is) is terrible?

Realist-If you don’t care that what Bush’ said led to the deaths of so many innocent people, including babies and the elderly, then I’m curious – why do you care about what Obama said having led to 7.1 million people receiving affordable health care incurance coverage?

It must be a pretty sad world you live in Realist when over 100,000 violent deaths of Iraqi civilians – and over 4800 US soldier deaths bother you less than 7.1 million receiving affordable health care.

However, please keep going on. All you’re doing is giving people a reason not to vote for people like you who consider the deaths of so many innocent lives an “acceptable” cost for pushing their political agenda, but are troubled by so many people receiving affordable health care, because that is not part of their political agenda.

You can’t argue with 7.1 million receiving affordable health care…but all those needless Iraqi deaths are going to haunt the GOP for forever.